Go read RFC 1982. They can do it that way without any real trouble as long as all of the secondary (B-M) servers are tweaked. Check out section 7 in particular. ---> Phil On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Frank Louwers wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:17:58PM +0000, Richard D G Cox wrote:
| but isn't 2004010101 (today) > 1076370400 (9 Feb 2004)?
Nope!
The new format will be the UTC time at the moment of zone generation encoded as the number of seconds since the UNIX epoch. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
... and not as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS or any contracted version thereof!
Don't they use YYYYMMDDNN now? So today's version whould be 2004010801. AFAIK, 1076370400 is actually "less" then 2004010801...
I know there are ways to "trick" nameservers in believing less is more, but that requires at least 2 changes, and I don't know if that is actually RFC-compliant behaviour...
Kind Regards, Frank Louwers
-- Openminds bvba www.openminds.be Tweebruggenstraat 16 - 9000 Gent - Belgium